Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/09/2025 6:37:04 AM PDT by Rev M. Bresciani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Rev M. Bresciani

This was the highest level example of a court doing something trendy rather than a decision that makes any sense. Probably did irreparable harm to our society.


2 posted on 10/09/2025 6:41:12 AM PDT by Williams (Thank God for the election of President Trump!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani
Obergefell didn't give the right to gays to call themselves "married". Their 1st Amendment free speech right already gave them that.

Obergefell was an attempt by the left to force the rest of us to call them "married". It was an infringement on our 1st Amendment rights, forcing us to condone (speak) what we otherwise wouldn't. All so they could push the slippery slope to more hedonism, including pedo.

3 posted on 10/09/2025 6:46:38 AM PDT by Tell It Right (1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani

“Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion which was handed down in a 5-4 vote stating that homosexual marriage was a Constitutionally legitimate right that belonged to all homosexuals in the USA.”

So I wonder if SCOTUS aka Supreme Clowns of the US will ever rule in favor allowing Muslims to marry six year old girls or sanctifying marrying animals or making marriage of humans to AI generated images legal.


5 posted on 10/09/2025 6:48:01 AM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani

Interesting article. No where in the article did it say that SCOTUS provided reasons why 35 individual states were unconstitutional or wrong.

SCOTUS basically said that they were disenfranchiseing the wishes of the voters in 35 individual states. It only takes 33 states to change the constitution. 35 states saying NO to homo-marriage seems to be a pretty high bar for SCOTUS to overturn.

In other words States Rights only apply when SCOTUS says they do


7 posted on 10/09/2025 6:53:39 AM PDT by OHPatriot (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani

State is simply motivated by money. State lawmakers are primarily lawyers who see the money associated with increased tax revenue as well as additional divorce work from being able to define more relationships as a “marriage”.

Of course, it will not end well. Rinse and repeart.


9 posted on 10/09/2025 6:58:57 AM PDT by Racketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani

State is simply motivated by money. State lawmakers are primarily lawyers who see the money associated with increased tax revenue as well as additional divorce work from being able to define more relationships as a “marriage”.

Of course, it will not end well. Rinse and repeat.


10 posted on 10/09/2025 6:59:20 AM PDT by Racketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani
hmm. From the article:

In a new case of Davis v. Ermold, Liberty Counsel will be asking SCOTUS to consider whether Obergefell v. Hodges should be overturned. The Court’s decision about whether to take the case will, according to Liberty Counsel, be made in the next few days.

I wonder how that's going to turn out.

11 posted on 10/09/2025 7:11:02 AM PDT by spankalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani
Also from kennedy:

As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.

That is gobble de gook!

12 posted on 10/09/2025 7:13:34 AM PDT by spankalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani
The 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection legal requirements were already met: like any heterosexual, homosexuals were free to marry anyone of their choosing of the opposite sex.

That they would prefer otherwise is legally meaningless. It's like saying, "I prefer to drive on the left side of the road."

13 posted on 10/09/2025 7:34:10 AM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani
The Supreme Court actually got it half right in the Obergefell case.

The case was originally brought by plaintiffs who claimed that same-sex couples were subject to discrimination under some provisions of the Internal Revenue Code because not all states recognized "same-sex marriage" under their laws. The Supreme Court actually got it right when it agreed with them. That's because there are no marriage statutes under federal law; these are codified under the laws of the various states. It is simply not tenable for a federal statute to be predicated upon personal relationships that are not recognized in federal law.

The Supreme Court, however, went completely off the rails when it decided on the REMEDY to this problem. Instead of mandating that all states must alter their marriage laws to conform to some kind of nebulous uniform standard that is not rooted in anything more than the whims of a court, the Supreme Court should have stricken out any provisions of the Internal Revenue Code associated with married couples. So all personal tax returns should be filed as individuals with no provision for married couples, estate tax law should be based on contractual relationships rather than relationships through marriage and/or children, etc.

14 posted on 10/09/2025 7:44:21 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Nobody sits a horse like Monte Walsh.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani

Government has no business regulating consenting adults’ personal relationships in any form whatsoever. How difficult a concept is that to grasp?


15 posted on 10/09/2025 7:57:07 AM PDT by Go_Raiders (An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani
While the US and most of the world call it marriage, it is really a civil union. Unless it is a sacramental marriage, blessed by the church, it is not a true marriage.

There is a place for civil unions in society, and nothing is wrong or bad about them. But, they are not marriages.

16 posted on 10/09/2025 8:01:04 AM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani

All I can say after reading (yes, reading) the source material is: “Huh???” Justice Kennedy makes no sense... at all.

His forcing of a human secularism belief into the American religious institutions violates our 1st amendment rights. He up and merged the homosexual belief that marriage includes “gay marriage” into all major belief systems theologies through the courts.


18 posted on 10/09/2025 8:39:48 AM PDT by egfowler3 (COVID-19, today's Hypochondriacal psychosis (aka: Delusional parasitosis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Rev M. Bresciani

It’s remarkable to me that they didn’t see the awful places this would lead to and has led.


19 posted on 10/09/2025 8:48:24 AM PDT by libertylover (The HBM (Has Been Media) is almost all AGENDA-DRIVEN and HATE-DRIVEN, not-truth driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson